Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About kenji_kenji

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Africa
  • Interests
    Military stuff

Recent Profile Visitors

532 profile views
  1. yes but the result doesnt feel like it, it just feels like a deathtouch "Ramming above 5 knots results in major damage." ye this is the case 90% of the time, so deathtouch happens, and doesnt seem very fair especially if you only get clipped
  2. Good Day fellow Captains I have been playing this game for quite some time now, and have always noticed how ramming doesnt feel exactly fair sometimes. for example, if you're low hp and about to die you ram and take down a ship with you, fair. but if both ships are still in a good fighting condition, and both ships are lost it seems such a massive waste of a ship and potential. as I find ramming is not always beneficial depending on what ship is traded, and depending on the tactical situation. If you are in a good tactical and fighting condition you may want to avoid an opponent that is trying to ram you. in most cases you could succeed in getting most of your ship out of the way but the enemy just clips your stern and that's it you're dead and your opponent got free 100k damage from that. this is especially frustrating if you evade a ram with which the ship would have actually glanced off of yours (which you would expect to have done some acceptable level of damage and survive) except all your opponent had to do was touch you and you're BOTH dead and your opponent get's the last laugh but no team really benefited from that. I understand that currently it is not always a death-touch scenario if smaller ships ram larger ones, but most of the time death-touch is the case. I would suggest a rework of the ramming mechanic. I can suggest a type of mechanic based on angles, speed, and displacement of ships. in such a way that the damage done would be higher when the approach angle is closer to perpendicular to the target ship (either broadside or bow/stern on), and higher with the relative speed, this damage will be done over time as long as contact is maintained with initial impact doing some damage as well, the damage also increases if your ship displacement is higher than your opponent, the converse is also true if you ram/be rammed by a larger ship. this allows for some survival if you actively try to avoid a ram and succeed and should be rewarded with lower damage instead of death, if you wish to ram successfully you will have to position your ship correctly and thus be rewarded with a successful ram. what I would be expecting is rams at shallow angles/low speed to result in ships scraping past each other and doing damage as they are in contact, and good damage/enough to kill if you t-bone someone or ram bow/stern on. this is perceived to feel more realistic and fair.
  3. why dont you just introduce duels where you can challenge other players. kinda like how it was with the previous 1v1 ranked battles we had some time ago. and have it in a separate custom game mode
  4. thanks predator for your input. you also mentioned an issue with the scaling mechanic having an adverse effect on a higher tier dd. perhaps we could limit the damage scaling to ships other than dd's?
  5. As I am sure many of you players and devs are aware, there are still many teething issues with CV play in the game. I do not advocate removing them as that is not within the interests of WG and as a player I feel that the role of CVs does make a difference in gameplay. Currently playing a CV is too risk free, you and your planes can harrass the enemy at will, even though you lose some squads, knowing how to swap out between squads effectively means you dont have to worry too much about losing planes either. There is currently no effective counter-play against enemy CV's, as not all ships have def-aa or seaplane fighters or effective AA. and if you are low tier and are the focus for an enemy cv you are pretty much done for. As such, I can recommend the following: -Scale torpedo(TB) and dive bomber(DB) damage according to the Tier level of the target. example: at T8 CV makes a torp run on a T6 battleship (BB) the TB's will scale down to do T6 level damage instead of the full T8 damage for that specific target. This allows the T6 ship to not become bullied by higher tier CV's as they tend to be rewarding targets for the lower AA protection and slower to movement. The CV now has the option to attack targets of it's own tier or higher as the damage should be allowed to scaled up by one tier if attacking ships at Tiers higher than itself. eg: T8 cv will do T9 damage against T9 ships. this comes as a risk as well since higher tier AA is more powerful but the player is rewarded for doing more damage. Using this mechanic will allow CV players to split their firepower between ships instead of leaning towards bullying lower tier ships for easy damage. This will also favour lower tier ships that cannot usually survive an attack by high level CV attacks and make playing against high tier CV less punishing. -The second suggestion is that there is currently no real effective counter-play against CV's when you are in a CV yourself. The patrol fighter does not have much of an area of effect to be an effective counter. Before the CV rework, the two CV's could duel each other by using their fighter planes tactically to deny or open opportunities and defend friendly ships. I would suggest that a CV should be able to direct it's patrol fighter to a location either by waypoint or selecting the target friendly ship (similar to how you select targets for secondary guns) of course the patrol fighter would still have a limited action time which is fine, but this would allow the player greater flexibility to deny or open opportunities and protect allied ships. Often times the friendly ships without effective AA would be harassed by planes with no real counter play and enemy planes would fly around to avoid the patrol fighter, this would allow the CV player the option to come to their aid. There should also be an incentive for defending allied ships, perhaps a new ribbon that would give you exp for defending ships from aircraft, instead of a simple 'aircraft shot down' ribbon. -The third suggestion is to slightly increase the respawn time of planes on the carrier so that the planes take longer to respawn. Currently there is not much risk for attacking ships as a CV as you can lose several squadrons and still be effective at doing damage with other squadrons and attacking weaker ships. From the receiving end of the CV player attack this would mean that during mid and late game there are less aircraft in a squadron to deal with however there is still the threat of still taking damage from a CV attack. Overall this would increase the risk factor of attacking ships and players should be more mindful of how to use their planes. I hope we can all have a civilised discussion on this topic and that WG will consider these suggestions as improvements and balancing of CV gameplay!
  6. Hi Wargaming I love wows, and have been playing this game for about 2 years now. I also have a nintendo Switch. Seeing as how a lot of major title free online games are having a Switch version like Paladins, Fortnite (hate fortnite) and Warframe, to name a few. I was wondering if it would be possible to make a Wows port over from the PC version once the CV rework is done. Though I dont think the Wows Blitz version would be suitable since it does not really play much in the same way as the pc version. also I wont get to use my pc account xD. thanks
  7. kenji_kenji

    Initial thoughts and feedback on SUBMARINES!

    I like the subs mode that I played so far to me, the aim of playing a sub would be using ambush tactics (as historically done) so the mechanics involved in attacking worked great I could hang back on the surface outside of detect range and move into an ambush position then dive to periscope when enemies were near. This can be assisted in pvp mode by having speed boost consumable (like dd's) that would only be usable on the surface. Since many subs were historically slow and designed to catch up to merchant vessels not fast warships. the amount of dive time available is also reasonably balanced although, for it to work in pvp the sub player would need a chance to escape after he has made an attack and detected and depth charged. I would propose a kind of decoy mechanic (similar to how dd's have smoke) that works under water where a 'fake' sub location would be picked up by the surface ship for a limited range/time and hide/decoy the real sub from detection. A great balancing mechanic in pvp would be a dynamic detection system. Planes were the bane of all subs, thus the air detection range should be slightly higher than the surface detection. This allows the sub to be spotted easier by planes and potentially countered (since they have a lower surface detect than dd's). The sub should have a crash dive time length (as currently in the halloween event the time to dive is almost instant) and then have enough time to move away from the area if spotted in unfavourable positioning. The underwater detection range should be variable according to the engine speed of the sub, this is to mimic the sound generated by the sub underwater. Allowing ships that do not have hydro acoustic search to be able to 'spot' the sub and essentially give everyone 'passive' sonar. However the subs will need more submerged time than is currently in the halloween mode, since underwater speed is generally slower than surface speed. due to the overpowered attacking potential of subs as ambush ships the ASW mechanic need to be relentless. which can be achieved with the points laid out previously. I would also like to add a few points on the use of torpedoes. the current setup is great, although it would be nice to know which button would be to select forward/rear tubes. To add some dynamics to pvp gameplay I can recommend using different torp types ( like in the halloween event) such as being able to select the speed and depth of the torpedo with compromises between each type. example: fast torps - less range; slow torps - more range deep water - more damage; shallow water - standard damage This would be similar to how surface ships have AP and HE